Energy West Mining Co. v. Estate of Blackburn, 857 F.3d 817

Background

Blackburn, a long-term coal miner and smoker, developed COPD/emphysema and claimed Black Lung Benefits under the Act; employer (Energy West) argued smoking, not coal dust, caused the disease.
Blackburn qualified for the 15-year presumption (shifting burden to employer to rebut Disease, Disease causation, and Disability causation); parties agree claimant met the threshold to trigger the presumption.
ALJ Malamphy initially denied benefits, finding Energy West rebutted the presumption; the Benefits Review Board vacated and remanded for inadequate explanation.
On remand a different ALJ (Johnson) found Drs. Farney and Tuteur (who attributed disease to smoking) not credible and awarded benefits; the Board affirmed.
Energy West appealed, arguing the first ALJ’s explanation was adequate, the second ALJ exceeded the remand, lacked substantial evidence, improperly injected medical views, over-relied on the regulatory preamble, failed to compare opinions even-handedly, and applied the wrong legal standard.
The Tenth Circuit denied review: it held Malamphy’s decision lacked adequate explanation, and that the Board properly affirmed Johnson — Johnson’s decision was within remand scope, supported by substantial evidence, did not usurp medical judgment, and any legal-standard error was harmless.

Issues

Issue	Blackburn's Argument	Energy West's Argument	Held
Adequacy of ALJ Malamphy’s explanation for denying benefits	Remand required because Malamphy did not explain credibility/why he preferred employer doctors	Malamphy’s summaries, quotations, and negative imaging findings suffice to show rationale	Court: Malamphy’s opinion was legally inadequate; Board correctly vacated for lack of articulation
Scope of remand and whether ALJ Johnson exceeded it	Remand required a reasoned weighing of opinions; ALJ Johnson could reassess credibility	Board had already treated Farney/Tuteur as sufficient; remand limited to affirming employer-favor	Court: Johnson acted within remand scope; Board’s remand required fresh credibility analysis
Substantial-evidence and credibility determinations regarding Drs. Farney and Tuteur	Claimant: ALJ may reject employer experts for inconsistencies, overreliance on statistics, and failure to address additive effects of coal dust and smoking	Employer: ALJ’s credibility findings unsupported; ALJ improperly drew medical conclusions	Court: Johnson’s credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence and proper evaluation of scientific disputes
Use of regulatory preamble and legal standard for rebuttal	Claimant: Preamble may inform credibility and scientific premises; any standard error harmless given credibility findings	Employer: ALJ treated preamble as binding law and may have applied a de facto rule-out standard	Court: Use of preamble to assess experts was permissible (not adopted as binding law); any misapplication of the rebuttal standard would be harmless because employer experts were discredited

Key Cases Cited

Gunderson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 601 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2010) (administrative decision must explain why one medical opinion is credited over another)
Antelope Coal Co./Rio Tinto Energy Am. v. Goodin, 743 F.3d 1331 (10th Cir. 2014) (elements for entitlement and limits on statistical overreliance in causation proof)
Blue Mountain Energy v. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 805 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2015) (permissible vs. impermissible uses of the regulatory preamble)
Dixie Fuel Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 820 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 2016) (ALJ may evaluate medical literature relied upon by a physician without usurping medical judgment)
Energy W. Mining Co. v. Oliver, 555 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard for review of ALJ credibility findings)